Hunting Debate

[Barnicals]

Quote by: Matt I think I already know that People don't need food from hunting in the developed nations, they can get it from other sources. I'm debating that hunting shouldn't happen in places like Canada, USA, etc., not in places like Brazil. Explain please how their arms and legs are the only 'fair' things. I can accept when a human goes and pulls out a carrot for food (I do it all the time), but that is because there has been no real evidence to show plants can think or feel. Animals can though.

There are still poor people in developed coutries, and they need nutrients from somewhere, and shelters don't always have a great veriety of choice in the way of meat.

Arms and legs are the only fair things in my opinion because I would call fire an advantage, sticks and clubs and advantage, and anything sharpened is an invention.

Plant nervous system? - Science Forums
Nervous systems of plants?
Turns out plants have a nervous system... therefore at least some would feel pain. But would that stop you eating plants?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'll have to eat more plants now that I know it would be screaming in pain if it had a mouth.

[shawmutt]

People don't need food from hunting in the developed nations, they can get it from other sources.

Are you talking about factory slaughterhouses--where we have a separate "caste" of individuals who provide pretty packaged meat that you pick up at the grocery store? Or are you talking about converting everyone to vegetarianism? Do you look for a label that says "No-Animal-Killing Farm Participant" on your produce?

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But your view is not the least selfish; the view that a wasp nest shouldn't be removed from a house is the least selfish view. Whether someone happens to support that view or not makes no difference. I never said it wasn't; I said it was an arbitrary point in a line of selfishness, just as five is an arbitrary point on a number line. Not if the population is kept at levels which render this unlikely. Because it punishes people who haven't done anything wrong simply to make the punishing of real wrongdoers more easy. You still need evidence before you fine someone. I know that, Matt. My point is that it's a valid reason; not that it's a 100% determining factor. No I'm not. A different story simply means that it's different; not that it will necessarily behave differently in this one particular instance. The point is that the motivations for leisure and work are not the same and so your argument (which is based on leisure hunting, since professional hunting is not at all widespread) doesn't apply. The proof is in the logic I already posted. Post 329, item 8. Address it directly. You're totally ignoring my argument. Humans have a much higher capacity for dealing with disease than wolves do. We have a healthcare system; wolves don't. The original quote was which sparked this discussion was: "They way the price of food has been going up (and will continue to do so), don't be surprised that "hunting" becomes much more popular. People gotta eat. I personally don't have a problem with it." Only if you continue to ignore the simple fact that doing two things at once is more time efficient than doing them both seperately. You're assuming that the risk is greater with natural predators than it is with hunters. The fact that it has worked in the past doesn't mean that it's more likely to work in the future, especially since my method has not even had a chance to be tested. Not if the practice and skills of hunting are allowed to die out. Real science operates by eliminating confounding variables. There are countless confounding variables when comparing deer hunting to the very specific example you provided. You failed to prove that neutering is more desirable from a deer's point of view than hunting. It's not a hypothetical point; it's a logical extrapolation from two proven premises. Address it directly.

It does make a difference. If my view is the least selfish view that has ever been done, than it is the most valid. Since you don't have proof anyone would leave there house so a wasp could build a nest in it, my view is the least selfish view known on this topic.

It may be an arbitrary line, but it is a valid opinion that probably most people share with me (that protecting tulips by killing is more selfish then protecting a house by killing). And one of the reasons I don't really have an issue with removing a wasp nest, is they pose a danger to us (they have stung people to death), while deer don't pose a threat.

Again, do you know what North America is like? If populations are kept from overpopulation there will still be deer in cities and towns. If people don't like it, then they can move into the core of the cement city. People have to learn to live with nature to some extent, and can't expect their lawn to be a protected plastic bubble.

How is banning all of hunting not just?

Correct, that is why if they were caught hauling a dead deer in the back of their pick up truck or eating venison at the BBQ, for example, they would be fined. I wouldn't fine people that I didn't have proof on.

Stepping out of the debate mode for one second, I agree, it is a valid reason. But the way society has been going may counter it.

But you refer that it will decrease differently basically in your quote. There is no evidence it will though, it may decrease more, the same, or less then leisure hunting.

I just read it again. My point is since a disease in the past has never targeted wolves or cougars, there is no reason it will now. And thinking that if a disease developed it would target both species and go across all the mountains...up into the artic...down to Arizona...up to Yellowstone...etc... is a little far fetched.

I already said I recognized that. But since humans have got many horrible diseases in the past (while wolves and cougars haven't), it weighs the balance again for both hypotheticals as equal. And therefore they cancel each other out yet again.

And after that didn't I go almost directly to the time and money?

We are talking about food...(as you can see the original quote stated).

My method has been tested before...and it worked. Our best guess is it will work again is most areas, but with hunting we don't know. Also, your method has been used, just not the the extent needed, since the population of hunters is too low for your method to work now. And we need to start going to solutions that can be deployed now, and natural predators can.

Hunting=grab a gun, shoot at deer in area of heart, haul deer in pick-up truck. Yep, people are sure going to forget those skills....

There are more variables with humans, since well, we think more and change more. Cougars and wolves don't really.

Life is worth more then balls, to be honest. Deer actually do other things then hump in life...and if them humping was eliminated it is not the end of the world for the deer, and they probably wouldn't notice.

It is a hypothetical point, since it has never worked, therefore there is no proof it can work. Maybe if all the ducks were in a line and it looked close to flawless then I would say it probably could work even if it hasn't been tried before. But your method doesn't have that, since it is based on hypothetical points with no proof to back them up. I am addressing the point, just maybe not the way you would like it adressed.

[Matt]

Quote by: shawmutt How do you anti-hunters think deer are kept from destroying crops? That's all well and fine until the predators find humans as pretty tasty prey. People are living in every ecosystem in this country, and we need to balance the needs of wildlife's with ours. Wolves were introduced in Yellowstone park to reduce the elk herd there. They did a bang-up job, reducing the herd by 80%. Now, instead of fulfilling their end of the predator-prey relationship and dieing off so the prey can rebound, the wolves are moving on. Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana now all want to start wolf seasons this year, to control the wolf population. Too late for Kent Carnagie, a Saskatchewan man who was eaten by the buggers. A quote from my American Hunter magazine: *APHIS | News From the APHIS FAQ:

Maybe eletrical fences should be installed around them, or normal fences.

And we have so far way out balanced our needs to their's. Look at what we have done to all their habitat and what we have done to them. We pushed cougars and wolves to the brink of extinction in most places, and now we are complaining about it that they are becoming a little of what they were 500 years ago. We have to realize we can't rule this continent.

The wolves are now becoming what they were, which is great.

Maybe he shouldn't have been out there alone. We should realize if we venture onto their land we should be prepared. Also, like that article said, it was the first case healthy wolves killing someone.

Neutering costs that much?


All respond to all the other posts later today.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Matt Maybe eletrical fences should be installed around them, or normal fences.

Fencing Yellowstone park? Do I really need to spend the time to figure out the sheer cost of this or do you realize the cost of building and maintaining a fence designed to keep wolves in an area of 3,472 square miles?

Quote by: Matt Neutering costs that much?

From the APHIS website:

APHIS | News

Q. How much does GonaCon cost? A. The main cost of using GonaCon is associated with the time and money required to either trap and inject or dart the deer. The vaccine itself only costs $2 –$ 10 per dose. The estimated cost of trapping or darting a deer ranges from $500 to $1,000.

Not only does it cost that much, but as my quote in #338 states, birth control alone is a tool to be used in conjunction with other control methods, and on its own has never, ever been able to control a wild, free-ranging deer herd.

The wolves are now becoming what they were, which is great. Maybe he shouldn't have been out there alone.

You are missing the point. Wolves were predators on the predator-prey scale. Wolves would kill until there was no prey, then die from starvation. The prey would then rebound, then the predators would rebound, and so goes the "circle of life". Well, there are humans in the mix now. Wolves can never be "what they were" as long as humans are in every ecology in this country. The Yellowstone wolves are leaving in packs and becoming a problem for ranchers and other residents.

We should realize if we venture onto their land we should be prepared.

Prepared how?

Also, like that article said, it was the first case healthy wolves killing someone.

The first documented case. This is a direct result of wolf population increases, and without a balance being struck between the needs of wildlife and the needs of people it will happen again.

Did you know that even vegetarians rely on hunters? Every farmer in this country has to use hunting to control wildlife populations. If they don't control them with hunting or some other lethal means, deer, goose, or other game populations reproduce, overpopulate and eat all the farmer's crops. This is why even vegans owe hunters.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt It does make a difference. If my view is the least selfish view that has ever been done, than it is the most valid.

A view isn't validated by the number of people who support it. That's a logical fallacy.

Quote by: Matt It may be an arbitrary line, but it is a valid opinion that probably most people share with me (that protecting tulips by killing is more selfish then protecting a house by killing). And one of the reasons I don't really have an issue with removing a wasp nest, is they pose a danger to us (they have stung people to death), while deer don't pose a threat.

Wasps needn't pose a threat to you if you simply board up the room they're in or move out of the house until the nest is abandoned. You may think this is not a reasonable request, but then the hunters don't think it's reasonable to give up control of their gardens for the sake of deer. Nothing makes either view correct.

Quote by: Matt Again, do you know what North America is like? If populations are kept from overpopulation there will still be deer in cities and towns. If people don't like it, then they can move into the core of the cement city. People have to learn to live with nature to some extent, and can't expect their lawn to be a protected plastic bubble.

Or kill enough deer to render them coming onto our land unlikely.

Quote by: Matt How is banning all of hunting not just?

I just expalined that. If it is banned simpy in order to make another law easier to enforce, it is not just because it punishes people who haven't done anything wrong, simply to make life easier for the police.

Quote by: Matt Correct, that is why if they were caught hauling a dead deer in the back of their pick up truck or eating venison at the BBQ, for example, they would be fined. I wouldn't fine people that I didn't have proof on.

Ignoring the point totally. It's not about proving that the person was hunting deer; it's about proving that hunitng isn't a valid method of population control.

Quote by: Matt But you refer that it will decrease differently basically in your quote.

No I didn't. Repeating yourself won't change this fact.

Quote by: Matt I just read it again. My point is since a disease in the past has never targeted wolves or cougars, there is no reason it will now. And thinking that if a disease developed it would target both species and go across all the mountains...up into the artic...down to Arizona...up to Yellowstone...etc... is a little far fetched.

And in my view, thinking that hunting will die out even if monetary incentives are given is a little far fetched. The question is, do you have any evidence?

Quote by: Matt I already said I recognized that. But since humans have got many horrible diseases in the past (while wolves and cougars haven't), it weighs the balance again for both hypotheticals as equal.

No it doesn't. Humans have been subjected to many deadly diseases and have survived them due to human intelligence. Other animals don't have this ability.

Quote by: Matt And after that didn't I go almost directly to the time and money?

After a while, you did. That doesn't change the fact that the point was originally only about money.

Quote by: Matt We are talking about food...

We are also talking about real life. Do you deny that, in real life, it is more time efficient to do two things at once than to do them both seperately?

Quote by: Matt My method has been tested before...and it worked. Our best guess is it will work again is most areas,

That's your best guess. The fact that something has worked doesn't mean that it's any more likely to work in the future than an alternative method, provided we know that they both can work.

Quote by: Matt but with hunting we don't know. Also, your method has been used, just not the the extent needed

My method of having a government hunting program has never been tested.

Quote by: Matt And we need to start going to solutions that can be deployed now, and natural predators can.

If they can be deployed that quickly, there's no harm in testing my method of hunting, then introducing the predators if it fails.

Quote by: Matt Hunting=grab a gun, shoot at deer in area of heart, haul deer in pick-up truck. Yep, people are sure going to forget those skills....

I think there's more to it than simply point and shoot.

Quote by: Matt There are more variables with humans, since well, we think more and change more. Cougars and wolves don't really.

But we're not comparing wolves and cougars to another group of wolves and cougars; we're comparing them to sea otters or whatever your example was.

Also, humans are involved in both cases, since it's humans who would be controlling or attempting to control the populations.

Quote by: Matt Life is worth more then balls, to be honest. Deer actually do other things then hump in life...and if them humping was eliminated it is not the end of the world for the deer, and they probably wouldn't notice.

So you've said before. You failed to prove it though.

Quote by: Matt It is a hypothetical point, since it has never worked, therefore there is no proof it can work.

The question of whether it will work is hypothetical. The question of whether it can work can and has been addressed with logic. Closing your eyes and endlessly saying that it's hypothetical doesn't change the argument that is waiting to be addressed.

[shawmutt]

I think there's more to it than simply point and shoot.

There most certainly is. My story: hunting skipped a generation in my family, and here I am at 32 trying to learn on my own so I can teach my son(s) and/or daughter someday. There is a lot of time and effort involved.

Let me explain a few more benefits of hunters. Did you know that hunting helps wildlife species recover? Every animal in North America lucky enough to have a hunting season on it has increased in number after that season was placed on it. Modern, regulated hunting has never caused a species to become endangered or even threatened; in fact, hunting is credited with saving the white rhino and the blue wildebeest from extinction. National Geographic* recently backed hunting as a conservation tool.

*Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says

Furthermore, did you know that sportsmen, not mountain bikers, bird watchers or hikers, pay for conservation and endangered species protection? We pay 75% of the costs of state game agencies. Taxes on hunting equipment--not hiking, skiing, or rock-climbing gear--are taxed 10% for conservation. By paying Pittman-Robertson** surtaxes on guns, ammunition, and other gear, hunters sent $294,691,282 to state conservation programs in 2005 alone.

**FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT (PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT): Summary from Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook

[Gods_Mercenary]

The wolves are now becoming what they were, which is great.

Thanks to our unnatural help. After they were eliminated, our re-introducing them was just as unnatural as killing them in the first place.

[Matt]

Quote by: Okieslims Almost every member of my family has hit a deer. My sister hit 2 of them.. Hunting is a necessity.. and its quicker and less painful than dying via natural predators

Have any proof that it is less painful for the deer to be hunted by humans compared to natural predators?

It is not needed...I have proven that. The other ways may take more time to install, but they are long term thinking.

Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow-creatures is amusing in itself. ~James Anthony Froude, Oceana, 1886

Theres part of the difference between natural predation and hunters...

Quote by: shawmutt Sorry I'm so late to this debate, but some more of your questions answered-- Americans eat more than 750 million pounds of wild game annually, an amount of meat equal to about 2 million slaughtered cattle. We eat what we kill and give hundreds of thousands of pounds of good meat to the needy each year. Hunting gives us the opportunity to celebrate our ancestral role in the natural world. See my previous post for an explanation of this. In addition to that, predators that are not hunted tend to become habituated to humans, which makes them much more dangerous. This is why any bears, cougars, or coyotes that show little fear of people are killed by game managers. Hollywood has people thinking "Dances with Wolves", the reality is like what happened to Timothy Treadwell.

Thats fine, though I may not be able to respond to your posts as quickly, since I have to respond to The Bacon Guy as well, and since I have school. I was looking for someone to debate with other hunting topics (other then deer), since me and The Bacon Guy are on that topic. Do you want to? If you don't, that is fine, it would just be nice to debate hunting as a whole which I have yet been able to do.

Have any evidence to back up your claim that people give hundred of thousands of pounds of wild meat to the needy each year?

Why should we celebrate one part of our 'ancestral past' when we are trying to erase most parts of it (eg. sexism, racism, having religions, etc.)? IMO, it is a part of what we had to do in the past, but there is no reason do to it now.

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison

You know why they do? Because some people are not that smart and like to go see the big cuddly bear and give it a donut. We are to blame for their habituation, and to hopefully solve most of the problem we can create more protected parks so we can introduce them there. Here in BC alone there are 606 parks I believe, which is a step in the right direction.

Like most people I agree that I talk to, that guy went too extreme. You can't expect to live with them and none to attack you ever. He caused it himself, and he knows that where ever he is now and I'm sure he forgives the bear.

When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when the tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity. ~George Bernard Shaw

Quote by: Barnicals There are still poor people in developed coutries, and they need nutrients from somewhere, and shelters don't always have a great veriety of choice in the way of meat. Arms and legs are the only fair things in my opinion because I would call fire an advantage, sticks and clubs and advantage, and anything sharpened is an invention. Plant nervous system? - Science Forums Nervous systems of plants? Turns out plants have a nervous system... therefore at least some would feel pain. But would that stop you eating plants?

And that is why I'm only debating about hunting in developed nations that can change, not in places in Africa that are not afluent enough to change.

I don't have as big of a problem with non 'new world' weapons. Guns to me are too unfair.

Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game. ~Paul Rodriguez

The fascination of shooting as a sport depends almost wholly on whether you are at the right or wrong end of a gun. ~P.G. Wodehouse

I don't eat venus fly traps. Anyhow, unless it has been proven that they can think or feel pain even close to what a deer can, then no problem with me. Becoming a fruitarion would be a little extreme, don't you agree? I'm doing my part by not supporting un-needed cruelty to animals, and until there has been significant studies that plants feel and think close to the levels animals do (and it becomes common knowledge like how people know aniamls can feel pain), I'm not changing and my view is more morally correct.

Quote by: shawmutt Are you talking about factory slaughterhouses--where we have a separate "caste" of individuals who provide pretty packaged meat that you pick up at the grocery store? Or are you talking about converting everyone to vegetarianism? Do you look for a label that says "No-Animal-Killing Farm Participant" on your produce?

Converting everyone to vegetarianism would be great. Buying meat from a supermarket or hunting are both un-needed, especially the first of the two.

[Matt]

Quote by: shawmutt Fencing Yellowstone park? Do I really need to spend the time to figure out the sheer cost of this or do you realize the cost of building and maintaining a fence designed to keep wolves in an area of 3,472 square miles? From the APHIS website: APHIS | News Not only does it cost that much, but as my quote in #338 states, birth control alone is a tool to be used in conjunction with other control methods, and on its own has never, ever been able to control a wild, free-ranging deer herd. You are missing the point. Wolves were predators on the predator-prey scale. Wolves would kill until there was no prey, then die from starvation. The prey would then rebound, then the predators would rebound, and so goes the "circle of life". Well, there are humans in the mix now. Wolves can never be "what they were" as long as humans are in every ecology in this country. The Yellowstone wolves are leaving in packs and becoming a problem for ranchers and other residents. Prepared how? The first documented case. This is a direct result of wolf population increases, and without a balance being struck between the needs of wildlife and the needs of people it will happen again. Did you know that even vegetarians rely on hunters? Every farmer in this country has to use hunting to control wildlife populations. If they don't control them with hunting or some other lethal means, deer, goose, or other game populations reproduce, overpopulate and eat all the farmer's crops. This is why even vegans owe hunters.

I was commenting about farmers' fields, not Yellowstone

I guess then natural predators will have to be deployed then. I actually do appreciate you are looking and finding sources, which most people haven't done in this debate.

As a hunter, how do you think people can control the popualtion of deer when it hasn't been sucessful so far at keeping the populations down, and that is has been declining (hunting) over the last few decades?

Yep, because normally they couldn't venture into other places (other wolf packs) once they ate most of their prey, but now they can, since there aren't many wolf packs around. Humans must reep what we sow. We have caused the deer population to sky rocket, and the wolf and cougar populations to plummit. Everything is so out of whack and we are trying to control stuff, but we can't, nature is very hard to control on a large basis. Sometimes we, since we caused the problem, need to give to fix the problem. But I don't see the average person giving to nature, I see them taking.

Do you honestly think I care about the ranchers? They can get another job. The other residents, well, experts should come in and talk about the wolves, and if they are causing alot of issues, the wolves should be removed and placed elsewhere (maybe in some remote place in Canada).

Bear spray, and a gun. If the animal is attacking them I don't have a probelm if a person shot it.

The needs of people currently=99% and animals=1%. That balance wont continue to work, animals need their space too.



Other posts will be responded to later tonight or tomorrow.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Matt Have any proof that it is less painful for the deer to be hunted by humans compared to natural predators?

Why is this proof necessary? This sounds like an appeal to emotion and is a red herring in my opinion. If you really require proof, do a youtube search comparing human hunting vs. animal hunting.

Quote by: Matt Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow-creatures is amusing in itself. ~James Anthony Froude, Oceana, 1886

One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted. ~Jose Ortega y Gassett

What about cats playing with mice? Have you ever seen a coyote catch a rabbit? Have you ever seen a bird dog sniff out a pheasant? You can see the look of joy on their faces. Is it primal? Yes. Is it wrong? No.

Quote by: Matt If you don't, that is fine, it would just be nice to debate hunting as a whole which I have yet been able to do.

Most of my arguments are about deer, because that is what I'm gunning for. However these arguments can be expanded to all hunting.

Quote by: Matt Have any evidence to back up your claim that people give hundred of thousands of pounds of wild meat to the needy each year?

OC USDANews Vol64 No6 Article 5

In fact, he added, in Fiscal Year 2004 APHIS Wildlife Services personnel donated more than 121,000 pounds of wild game--primarily deer and geese--to shelters and food pantries, as well as to needy individuals residing in their local areas. Turkey, moose, duck, elk, bear, and pig meat were also part of the mix. In FY 2005 the number grew to just over 150,000 pounds of meat.

In addition to this federal government program, most states have their own programs, and there are also non-profits like Hunters for the Hungry in Virginia ( -- "Hunters For The Hungry" Our Founders -- )

Quote by: Matt Why should we celebrate one part of our 'ancestral past' when we are trying to erase most parts of it (eg. sexism, racism, having religions, etc.)?

I also see this as a red herring. Let's stick with hunting.

Quote by: Matt IMO, it is a part of what we had to do in the past, but there is no reason do to it now.

I have furnished many reasons, none of which you addressed. Recovery of wildlife species, funds for conservation and endangered species protection, and damage reduction to crops, to name a few. I'll name a few more:

Did you know that professional hunters keep airports safe?

Wildlife services, a division of the Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service, works in every major airport around the country to make sure deer aren't on our runways and flocks of geese don't take out jet engines--their chief tactic: hunting. The threat is real. Wildlife collisions with planes and jets cost the aviation industry $600 million per year.*

*FAA - Part 139 Best Practices: Wildlife Management

Did you know that hunting deer reduces highway fatalities?

Some 200 people are killed every year in the US due to deer-auto collisions and 25,000 are sent to emergency rooms. According to the Insurance Information Institute, there are 1.5 million deer-auto collisions annually in the US.* This is with hunters killing 8-10 million deer per year. What would happen on our roadways if hunters went on strike?

*III - Press Releases

Did you know that when you end deer hunting even songbirds suffer?

An unchecked deer herd breeds until it overpopulates and then over-browses its habitat. When this happens you get a browse line 6 feet high throughout the forest--all the vegatation they can reach is devoured. As a result, nesting cover for upland birds and many songbirds vanishes, as do food sources for many game and non-game species. This is just one reason why hunting helps wildlife and benefits entire ecosystems.

Quote by: Matt Guns to me are too unfair.

Hunting isn't "fair", but neither is nature. Last time I checked wolves have bigger teeth than elk. In nature there are predators and there are prey. Reach into your mouth, feel that sharp tooth behind your incisors--they're canines. They're made for ripping flesh from bone. We're omnivores.

You need to make up your mind here. Guns offer the quickest, least painful way these animals can die. Would you rather have them suffer the teeth of wolves or starve, or be managed and provide the benefits I listed?

Quote by: Matt I'm not changing and my view is more morally correct.

Quote by: Matt Converting everyone to vegetarianism would be great. Buying meat from a supermarket or hunting are both un-needed, especially the first of the two.

I think a reality check is needed here. As I posted in #346

Every farmer in this country has to use hunting to control wildlife populations. If they don't control them with hunting or some other lethal means, deer, goose, or other game populations reproduce, overpopulate and eat all the farmer's crops. This is why even vegans owe hunters.

Furthermore, millions of little critters lose their lives every year to the combine. What you call "more morally correct" I call denial. It also upsets me that in order to be a vegetarian one has to let this meat rot in the fields (the deer, not the little critters, voles don't taste too good )

Quote by: Matt I was commenting about farmers' fields

And somehow that's not a more ludicrous theory? Who will pay for the fencing? By the way, it takes a fence at least 8' tall to effectively keep deer out.

Quote by: Matt The other residents, well, experts should come in and talk about the wolves, and if they are causing alot of issues, the wolves should be removed and placed elsewhere (maybe in some remote place in Canada).

Wolves eat, multiply, and move. How much money would you want to see wasted before conceding that hunting is a viable control method?

Quote by: Matt Bear spray, and a gun. If the animal is attacking them I don't have a probelm if a person shot it.

That is a fundamental difference in thinking between you and I. I prefer to manage the animals before they become a problem, you prefer to let the animals become a problem before you manage them.

Quote by: Matt *Everything is so out of whack and we are trying to control stuff, but we can't, nature is very hard to control on a large basis. *The needs of people currently=99% and animals=1%. *As a hunter, how do you think people can control the popualtion of deer when it hasn't been sucessful so far at keeping the populations down

I think it's your turn to provide some cited support for these particular claims.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy A view isn't validated by the number of people who support it. That's a logical fallacy. Wasps needn't pose a threat to you if you simply board up the room they're in or move out of the house until the nest is abandoned. You may think this is not a reasonable request, but then the hunters don't think it's reasonable to give up control of their gardens for the sake of deer. Nothing makes either view correct. Or kill enough deer to render them coming onto our land unlikely. I just expalined that. If it is banned simpy in order to make another law easier to enforce, it is not just because it punishes people who haven't done anything wrong, simply to make life easier for the police. Ignoring the point totally. It's not about proving that the person was hunting deer; it's about proving that hunitng isn't a valid method of population control. No I didn't. Repeating yourself won't change this fact. And in my view, thinking that hunting will die out even if monetary incentives are given is a little far fetched. The question is, do you have any evidence? No it doesn't. Humans have been subjected to many deadly diseases and have survived them due to human intelligence. Other animals don't have this ability. After a while, you did. That doesn't change the fact that the point was originally only about money. We are also talking about real life. Do you deny that, in real life, it is more time efficient to do two things at once than to do them both seperately? That's your best guess. The fact that something has worked doesn't mean that it's any more likely to work in the future than an alternative method, provided we know that they both can work. My method of having a government hunting program has never been tested. If they can be deployed that quickly, there's no harm in testing my method of hunting, then introducing the predators if it fails. I think there's more to it than simply point and shoot. But we're not comparing wolves and cougars to another group of wolves and cougars; we're comparing them to sea otters or whatever your example was. Also, humans are involved in both cases, since it's humans who would be controlling or attempting to control the populations. So you've said before. You failed to prove it though. The question of whether it will work is hypothetical. The question of whether it can work can and has been addressed with logic. Closing your eyes and endlessly saying that it's hypothetical doesn't change the argument that is waiting to be addressed.

I have proved so many times a house is worth more then a few plants, in time and money. And like you agreed to (well, you seemed to at least), protecting (killing) something that means alot to you is less selfish then protecting (killing) something that doesn't mean as much to you. My point then is less selfish. Point proven.

How are they giving up control if they put up a fence or a sprinkler system? If anything they are gaining more control. Your point is flawed. Also, by protecting a garden, all you have to do is put up a fence, and you don't have to move out or anything. But unless you plan on moving out, wasp nests wont be able to stay. One inflicts minor damage to us (putting up a fence or letting the deer eat a few plants) and one inflicts major damage (moving out of our house).

You still haven't provided a drop of evidence that hunting could do that to their populations. Unless you have any evidence, your point is worthless.

My method would ban the hunting of both anyhow, so it wouldn't matter. Only in your method it could become a problem.

Hunting isn't valid since there isn't proof it could work, since it hasn't, and it isn't even now when there are culls going on.

Stop ignoring the point. You made a point you couldn't prove, lets not be silly here. You stated that professional hunting will decrease differently, and if you can't admit something that I have shown and quoted you...well...I guess I will do the same. It isn't easy debating when the person is ignoring evidence right in front of their nose.

Do I have any evidence about what?

Humans as a whole have, but not a single population, for example. A disease hitting most of the hunters is probably just as likely as a disease killing all the wolves or cougars. Also, most new diseases are not treatable, and the disease could be a fast killing one, and there is no time to find a cure for it. Both hypotheticals cancel each other out, unless again you are ignoring my points.

I agree it is more time efficient. And if we were talking about the time efficiency of getting food and leisure time at the same time, I would agree with your point. We are talking about getting food though, and you twisted that so it suited you better.

And we don't know if hunting can work on a large enough scale. Just because you said it can doesn't mean it can, unless you have evidence to back up your claim.

No, it hasn't. But hunting (which is the main part of your method) hasn't worked so far in the areas it has been done. Though mine has, as national parks show you.

Like I have stated previously, natural predators wont be an overnight success. It will take a few years most probably. I said they could be deployed...never said they could start working soon. Don't twist my words.

Explain how there is more to it then point, shoot, slaughter.

Ok, lets compare it to wolves this time. Wolves were very good at killing elk in Yellowstone, but then humans killed them. They were introduced recently, and they worked like a charm (as shawmutt stated). Something that worked before is likely to work again.

Humans have tried to keep populations of deer down in said areas, but even if there were more hunters then wolves, the wolves have done a better job. You know why? Since they were meant to control deer populations and they do a great job at it, along with cougars.

How have I failed to prove it?

Just because you said it can work doesn't mean it will, like you have said to me many times. Stop expecting your word to be law, it isn't, and unless you have sources to back it up, it is basically worthless.

[Matt]

Quote by: shawmutt